government theory

Chapter 23 Who is this heir? (6)
So far as we can make any conclusions about the matter from the Scriptures, this place in the original seems to show only that, if they had any government at that time, it was like a republican government. , rather than an absolute monarchy.For the Bible tells us (Genesis Chapter 11): "They said" - that it was not a king who ordered the building of this city and tower, it was not by the command of the king, but by many Command, the consultation of a free people - "We will build a city".They built it for themselves as free men, not as slaves for their prince and master.Their purpose in building the city was "that we should not be scattered in the land", for once the city was built they would have a permanent residence in which to settle themselves and their families.Those who make such counsels and plans are free to separate, but they would like to be united as a whole, which is neither necessary nor likely to happen to those who are united under one monarchy.These people, if they were, as our author says, slaves under the absolute dominion of a prince, it would be quite unnecessary for them to do everything in their power to prevent themselves from this dominion.I ask, is this meaning clearer in Scripture than what our author calls Adam's successor, or "the power of the Father"?

147．But if, as God has said, they were of the same race, and had one ruler in common (Genesis, Chapter 11, verse 72), with a king who had absolute supreme power over them by natural right, if suddenly God is willing to allow [-] "different states" (our author said there are so many) to be established among them, each accepting the jurisdiction of different rulers, and immediately breaking away from the original monarchy, then " And why should God be so concerned with preserving the patriarchy represented by the supreme Fatherhood?"It is a random superposition of our likes and dislikes on God's care.

Does it make sense to say that God carefully preserves the "father's power" of those who do not have it?For what power would they have if they were subjects under a supreme prince, and God now took away the true "supreme fatherhood" from the natural sovereign?Is it reasonable to say that God, in order to preserve the "authority of the Father," has thus brought into being several new governments and rulers, not all of whom enjoy the "authority of the Father"?On the other hand, it would not be equally justifiable to say that God was careful to injure the "authority of the father" by dividing the government of one man who had "the authority of the father" among his subjects. ?In the same way, when a monarchy falls apart and is divided by subjects who rebel against it, the monarchical government feels that God is carefully preserving the power of the prince by dividing a stable empire into many small states, which is consistent with our author's Isn't the law of debate exactly the same?It is a peculiar way of saying that what God wills to keep he keeps as a thing carefully, and is therefore respected by man as necessary and useful, and no one thinks it should be emulated.

But, for example, Shem (because he was alive at that time) had the "father's authority" or the right by "fatherhood" to rule over that tribe in Babel, but, then, in Shem was alive I do not believe it can be proper and proper to say that another 72 persons should have "father's authority" or rights derived from "fatherhood" over the same tribe divided into so many governments at the same time. Exactly.These 72 fathers were either rulers just before the chaos, or they were not of one race, but God Himself said they were of one republic.Where, then, is the monarchy?Otherwise, the truth is, these 72 fathers have "father's power" but they don't know it.

Strange, since "the power of the father" is the only source of human government, yet all human beings don't know it!What is even more strange is that the change of accent suddenly revealed this matter to these 72 fathers, so that they knew in an instant that they had "father's power", and the rest also knew that they should obey their father. right, and each knows to which particular "fatherly right" he is subject!Whoever can draw such an argument from the Bible can likewise find there the utopian model that best suits his fancy and interests, and the Fatherhood thus treated can be both an avenue for an attempt to gain full Just as the sovereign of the sovereign power of the world defends himself, he defends his subjects as well.For since they were both fathers of one family, they could break away from all subordination to him, and divide his empire into many small kingdoms, to be their own sovereigns.

Before our author was at that time ascertaining whether it was Shem who was still alive, or the 72 new princes (who began to create 72 kingdoms in his dominions and ruled over his subjects) had the patriarchal power, the father Who has the power among them is a question after all.For, our author tells us that both have the (supreme) power of the "father," and is cited by him to prove that those who do "have, by the right handed down to them, the highest power with any prince." Absolute dominion as extensive as Adam's dominion".There is no getting around that, if "God was careful to preserve the power of the Father of the newly established seventy-two kingdoms," it must have been that he was equally careful to impair all grounds for Adam's succession; for in the true heir (God If such a succession was ever established) while Shem was still alive, and they were one people, God took such care to retain the power of the fathers of so many (at least 72) who could not have been the sons of Adam, can we Draw such a conclusion?

148．Nimrod is the second example he cites of enjoying this ancestral power, but I do not understand why our author seems to feel a little disgusted with him, and says that he "extended his empire unjustly, and used violence encroach on the rights of other heads of families".The "head of the family" mentioned here is what the author calls the "father of the family" in his account of the dispersion of the city-state of Babel.

It doesn't matter what you call them, we all know who they are, in short, the power of the father falls on them, there is no second possibility, or because they are the heirs of Adam, in this way, there cannot be as many as 72, nor can they There are more than one at the same time; or because they are the natural fathers of their children, so that each father has "paternal power" over his children by virtue of this power, and this power is as extensive as the 72 fathers. , they are independent monarchs to their descendants.After explaining the "lord of the family" in this way, he described the origin of the monarchy very skillfully in the following words: "In this sense, he may be called the founder of the monarchy." Violently violating by force the right of other fathers to dispose of their children, a power which, if acquired by natural right (how else would the seventy-two fathers have it), without their own assent, No one can take it away.I would like our author and his friends to consider, then, how much other princes have to do with the matter, whether it would, according to the author's conclusion in that All the royal powers of people outside the country were transformed into tyranny and usurpation, and even into the right of election and consent of the patriarch, which differed very little from the consent of the people.

149．He listed the twelve kings of Edom in the next section, the nine kings in the corner of Asia in the age of Abraham, and the 31 kings who were destroyed by Joshua in Canaan. He cited these examples and proved that these kings were all Sovereign princes, and the devolving power of a king in every city at that time, are all evidences directly contrary to his view, that the "rule" handed down to him by Adam was not the basis for making them princes, because If, by virtue of this title, they possessed the throne, there would be only one, or a single ruler governing them all, or the father of each family, being a sovereign like them all, could claim the throne.

If all the sons of Esau, young and old, each had the "right of patriarchy," and after their father's death they all became kings to reign, their sons would have the same right after his death, by which By analogy, after billions of generations, all the natural rights of fathers will be restricted to dispose only of their own children and their offspring; and the power of fathers will end with the death of each head of the family, so that the same fathers The power rests upon each of his sons to dispose of his offspring separately; thus the power derived from the fatherhood would indeed be preserved, which is understandable, but it does not contribute to the purpose which our author intends to achieve. None of the examples he gave proved that any power they had was based on their paternal entitlement as heirs to Adam's paternity, nor on their own entitlement.Because Adam's "paternal right" is to dominate all human beings, he can only pass it on to one person at a time, and then he can only pass it on to his real heir. a king.If it is not based on paternity descended from Adam, then this qualification must be only because they themselves are fathers, and they have power over no one but their own offspring.

Then, if the twelve princes of Edom who belonged to Abraham’s descendants, the nine kings of Abraham’s neighboring countries, the 31 kings of Esau and Jacob, and the 72 kings of Canaan, and the 32 kings who were slaughtered by Adoni-Bethik, to Benar The [-] kings of Germany, and the seventy kings of Greece who fought in Troya, according to our author, if they are all ruling monarchs, the power of these kings obviously comes from "fatherhood" that some of them had power beyond their own descendants, proving that they could not all be Adam's heirs.A man's claim to power by virtue of the right of "fatherhood" is, I venture to say, intelligible or possible only in two cases: or because he is Adam's heir. , or because he is the grandparent who has power over the offspring of his own begotten.Apart from these two, I dare say that no one can find other reasons.If our author could prove that any one of the princes he enumerated was entitled to power by one of the above qualifications, I might concede his assertion, but they are obviously all in no way connected with the thesis he uses to prove it. Coherent, and directly contradictory, his contention was originally that Adam's "government over the whole world should have been passed on to the patriarchs".

(End of this chapter)